Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

[Vatican2Rocks]

Your last paragraph is worth noting. Just know though settling can be subjective. Some people with “settle” for looks alone, and not spend enough time on the personality or the moral makeup of a potential spouse. Looks can fade and change, a true moral code or foundation in a mate not so much. And if all one focuses on is the outward appearance by society’s standards, they will reap the blessings OR curses depending upon how one sees it.

and again you are saying that people who want someone they are sexually attracted to are ONLY going for looks and therefore making a bad decision. you are the one making it exclusive only to looks. the fact is the priest is right. you MUST be sexually attracted to your mate, otherwise what is the point of sex let alone marriage.

 

[chevalier]

After reading some of the older posts in this thread:

for me and for most people looks do come first. you see a person first before you know anything about their personality. only a blind person is exempt. for him hearing comes first and then personality. and if you don’t like the sound of a person’s voice, they aren’t the one either.

Yes. Perhaps there are people who can totally get over that but in most cases IMHO trying to pretend it’s not like that will only lead to disaster (e.g. divorce after a couple of years).

I once got into a heated discussion with a man who insisted that ALL women like the bad boy type and I just didn’t know or understand that (and I, of course, am a woman). It was kind of comical. But he seriously though all women were attracted to one type of man, no exceptions.

But I’ve wondered this too. I was pretty much a “good girl” in high school and college and hung out with other “good girls.” We didn’t party, do drugs, we studied, didn’t dress immodestly (we weren’t wearing burlap sacks or anything, just normal clothes)… and we were routinely ignored by nice guys who had crushes on girls involved with “bad boys” (and usually those girls were party girls, very stylish, etc).

It’s like I said before, I have this pet theory that some men get wrapped up in wanting the girls already with “bad boys” that they don’t notice the available women near them.

It seems to me those guys want to change those women, accomplish the mission only they can do and then get royally rewarded, something of this kind. Sound familiar? IMHO that’s very similar to whatever is drawing that woman to the bad guy or making her unable to leave him.

To you, it is a pet peeve. With guys like me and the OP, it is a problem and a serious one.
There are many a lady who complain about not getting a gentleman. Hence, telling us to “man up” is pointless since it is not exclusively a male issue!

Truth be told there are complaints from the fair sex, too, and probably no fewer than from the men (if not more).

Ladies who may be less physically attractive… find a way to be more attractive. That’s a harsh thing to say, but find a way without being cheap and immodest. Then find a way to get attention without resorting to something like dropping a pencil and reaching down to pick up. You ladies are good at finding ways to generate positive attention. Do it!

Most celebrities without Photoshop or several hours of a make-up artist’s work don’t look half as good as a good share of students from the library.

Gentlemen, find a way to be bold and assertive without being a cad or heartless jerk. Dress like you’re successful. Act like you’re successful and have it all together even if you don’t. Women are well aware that you’re putting your best foot forward when approaching them for the first time, so don’t think that doing so is “lying” to them.

In fact, if you knowingly create an impression which in your case is false, and do so in order to derive an advantage from that false impression, knowingly, then that’s pretty much lying. Just be yourself and be confident the way you are.

I have wondered about this myself. When I was in college, there was this jerk who serially used women. What I couldn’t get was that a) he’d be able to interest anyone who’d seen how he’d treated his previous girlfriends and b) that these women got mad not at him, but at each other!! They actually had fights over this guy. The phrases that come to mind to describe him are not charitable, let’s say that. I thought the women were just brainless.

‘Lemmings’ was the word I used.

The only thing I can think of is that people equate difficulty with rarity and rarity with value. If you can snag and tame the worst, you must be the best. Those are faulty equations, but I think there is some prideful “if he chooses me as a girlfriend,* I* will be able to hold on to him and he won’t treat me like that. *I *will command more respect than that.” Then the guy proceeds to totally undermine his victim’s sense of her self, and she blames her inevitable failure to change him on some defect in herself. It’s very sad, it really is, but I don’t expect the men who try to make the lives of women they are interested in better instead of more difficult to feel too sorry for them!

A 19th century Polish writer delved into the subject at some point. There was basically that aristocratic damsel (countess) whose father was losing property at a somewhat rapid rate, a businessman (successful self-made merchant) of actually a noble descent himself (possibly as good as the girl’s, or even slightly better, although untitled–Poles historically never cared about titles, those started when we lost independence and weren’t exactly awarded for opposing the conquerors’ administration), and some kind of pseudo-aristocratic douchebag who behaved like a spoiled aristocrat but whose lineage was at best equal to that first guy’s (and he was a cousin of the girl’s), with the implication that it probably was worse. The taint of trade was the doom of that entrepreneurial guy, who was actually doing a heckload of work making the girls’ father’s and other aristocratic misfits’ remaining money bring some profit. For economic reasons the betrothal actually took place, but the girl started flirting with guy #2 in a language guy #1 didn’t understand… until he took classes and learnt it at a rapid rate. He broke off the engagement, guy #2 disappeared somewhere, girl married a railway engineer, guy #1 seemed to become inclined towards a woman with a similar background.

 

[chevalier]

Still, I think there is a foolish belief that there is nothing to be proud of when you are treated well by a guy who treats everyone well.

Noticed that too.

The other very unfortunate belief is that “I don’t deserve to be treated that well.”

Tragic but then there’s only a limited extent of what you can do about that.

As for the “nice” guys, sometimes they try too hard. It is as if they have “Please, Please, Please! Please Would Somebody Date Me?” stamped on their forehead. When someone tries too hard, it sets off a “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is” wariness. It’s only natural.

Yup. Besides, nobody wants to be that ‘Somebody Who Will Finally Date Me’. People want to be appreciated for their unique selves and they’re in their right as to that one.

People also like reciprical relationships, and so they aren’t comfortable with someone who puts forth far more effort than they are inclined to put out. This goes for both men and women. They look for someone who is a little lower maintenance, instead, or for those who withholds the heavy artillery until there has been some counter interest shown. Besides, if someone puts themself out for everyone else too much, it means you’re going to be following them around as they put themselves out for the whole world, beyond what the world needs or wants. That can be a wearying prospect.

Or you can just keep looking until you find someone who puts in the same degree of effort that you do. This is what I chose long ago.

First of all, the Bible never describes God as “nice” so I see no reason for a girl to want a nice guy. They want someone who is a true man aka like God. Passionate, merciful, giving, assertive etc…

Out of the four adjectives you mention two are ‘merciful’ and ‘giving’, which obviously can’t be taken for granted (to round out the four) just because ‘assertive’ and ‘passionate’ are already present. In other words, don’t make the mistake of assuming that positive traits associated with good rulers are present in people of whom you only know that they want power.

When I was in college and high school I was somewhat unique. I never dranks, swore, did drugs, smoke or went to porn. I went to Friday night bible studies and Intervarsity Fellowship. My nickname was “nice guy Carl.” But I was short, ugly, had no money and no car. Later after school I joined a Christian singles group. Some of us guys would watch as girls who had never spoken to us would walk over to introduce themselves to the tall, good looking guy who just joined.

You don’t really have much to regret. From the perspective of a tall, good-looking guy I can tell you that the effect wanes quickly, the women we talk about move on to the next target rather quickly, they lose interest in you the moment you start reciprocating it, and so on. In fact, they might even lose respect for you quickly because of your being nice to them. Besides, they still choose the bad guy in the short term even if looks don’t work in his favour.

All those portrayed as Christians were young, attractive and looked healthy. Those who were not portrayed as Christians were old and ugly.

Goes back to forever. Same old.

Well, I’m not certain the Bad Boys* are *getting more women, but a thought just occurred to me, seeing your above statement that “the nice guys are sitting there…” and perhaps that’s part of the problem. While the others are flirting, complimenting, etc., are the nice fellows just “sitting there?”

There’s an old expression “A faint heart never won a fair lady.” One has to be proactive and outmaneuver the “Bad Boys.” But I personally always went for the nice, polite quiet types myself, being old fashioned.

I agree on inactivity of the ‘nicer’ people being a huge part of the problem. On the other hand, as far as competing with the ‘bad boys’ goes, that’s a gauntlet I don’t take up. It makes me think the lady in question has some growing up still to do and her desirability in my eyes falls when I see what she finds desirable. Admittedly, this is a jerky trait on my part. I just don’t compete below my perceived league.
The Bucket;9301509:

I think you’re right at the message but wrong on the reasoning. When someone tries too hard it sends off a vibe of being pathetic. Too available. Too eager to please. What woman or frankly any person, wants to get involved in that situation? Imagine you’re conducting a job interview. Who are you going to give the job to? A person who has experience is self-assured and already has a good job or a desperate long-term unemployed person who is begging for a shot?

+1

Be yourself. Live your life for God, other people, your country, and so on. Not to please a girl. Never behave like an eager vallet.

 

[chevalier]

I’m here to crash the Pity Party!

http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/060808/153048__anchorman_l.jpg

Lighten up, smile, and relax. God has a plan for each of us.

Also:

Rule #6 - Do not sit in the corner and sulk. It draws attention in a negative way. Draw attention to yourself, but on your own terms.

Rule #71 - No excuses. Play like a champion.

+1

And you still won’t be able to attract some women anyway (almost everybody suffers through a number of failures before finding someone it works out with). The point is, just be yourself and make yourself a better person, not just your image.

I tried outmaneuvering, and I found out that going for a full offensive can actually work. (Please excuse the military jargon.)

Yes, you can’t operate a machine gun with a knife in your eye. The problem is getting into melee range. That may need a Gurkha or a Pole to accomplish.

 

[PatriceA]

and again you are saying that people who want someone they are sexually attracted to are ONLY going for looks and therefore making a bad decision. you are the one making it exclusive only to looks. the fact is the priest is right. you MUST be sexually attracted to your mate, otherwise what is the point of sex let alone marriage.

Wrong again. The fact that you think the point of sex let alone marriage is that you must be sexually attracted to your mate just proves how far off the mark you really are.

 

[chevalier]

Wrong again. The fact that you think the point of sex let alone marriage is that you must be sexually attracted to your mate just proves how far off the mark you really are.

Disagree, on so many levels. On the most biological level, intercourse is actually impossible if the man is totally not attracted to the woman. On a more humane level, desire is a normal component of spousal love (just look at Song of Songs).

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Quote:

"OR you automatically assumed I meant someone physically good looking when I said someone that is “pretty”. My definition of “pretty” can be anyone shallow or without morals or self absorbed. You automatically assumed I meant physical appearance. You interpreted it by your own definition, not mine. "

people who define pretty the way you just did are NOT NICE.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

OR you automatically assumed I meant someone physically good looking when I said someone that is “pretty”. My definition of “pretty” can be anyone shallow or without morals or self absorbed. You automatically assumed I meant physical appearance. You interpreted it by your own definition, not mine.

people who define ‘pretty’ the way you just did are NOT NICE

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Wrong again. The fact that you think the point of sex let alone marriage is that you must be sexually attracted to your mate just proves how far off the mark you really are.

well im not having sex with an ugly toad or anyone i decide i’m not sexually attracted to. That to me is disgusting.

and a guy who tries to convince me to have sex with him in spite of this is in the wrong if he tries to force, coerce, or convince me otherwise. it would be morally and ethically wrong for a parent to expect their child to have sex with someone they are not attracted to on sexual level, but has money or power for example. many marriages in the past were conducted on that basis and to me they are null and invalid. a good and famous example off the top of my head is the marriage of king henry 8 who was a child at the time to catherine of aragon who was an adult. in my opinion, most royal marriages were invalid.

 

[Kelfa28]

I know this post has gone into a completely different direction but I didn’t see anyone comment on the effect of birth control and how it really effects the hormonal imbalances in women.

It skews how women judge men and can actually result in women picking less desirable men.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Disagree, on so many levels. On the most biological level, intercourse is actually impossible if the man is totally not attracted to the woman. On a more humane level, desire is a normal component of spousal love (just look at Song of Songs).

yeah…what he said.

 

[johnnyjones]

Your last paragraph is worth noting. Just know though settling can be subjective. Some people with “settle” for looks alone, and not spend enough time on the personality or the moral makeup of a potential spouse. Looks can fade and change, a true moral code or foundation in a mate not so much. And if all one focuses on is the outward appearance by society’s standards, they will reap the blessings OR curses depending upon how one sees it.

I understand the viewpoint you have and of course there is always subjectivity. Looks can fade and change but that does not mean sexual attraction diminishes if it is genuine, and most know when it is. A couple can be very much into each other physically even in “old age”.

Looks are at the forefront and as well they should be. What is inside must be compatible as well, but most often you get to the inside based on snap of the fingers physicality.

 

[Et_Cetera]

It’s a pretty simple thing to figure out…and this really is no secret to most of us here. But fair warning, your mind will rebel against this.

Woman are attracted to Alpha traits within men: aggressiveness, assertiveness, confidence, etc. Woman are attracted to these men sexually, whether they like it or not. They make good mates because those genes are good for survival. Women are excited by these types because they display strong characteristics that are good for reproduction. The old saying, “women may not like jerks, but they are attracted to them”, holds a lot of truth. I think most guys here have plenty of data to back this up…and it also lines up anthropologically. These guys are the “bad boy”, the “douche bag”, etc…think The Situation…or anyone on Jersey Shore. Alphas.

I think you bring up some good points here, but I have to highly disagree with your example of alphas. Those Jersey Shore guys are gaudy, repulsive, and seem to be lacking in intelligence (from the little that I know of the program). I think of alphas as well educated, well dressed, financially successful, assertive, and clever, and maybe a bit arrogant. I mean, you can have different types. There could also be an alpha of the alternative crowd, like a guy who has a motorcycle, smokes, drinks whiskey, and is generally seen as tough. (Yeah, I know I’m really generalizing here.) For those of you who watch Mad Men, I think of Don Draper as an alpha character to those around him, especially when he’s in the office.

You’re right, a lot of these traits can be attractive, and it’s not only stupid women or women with low standards who go after this type of person. If a woman were to allow herself to be repeatedly treated poorly by a string of these guys or even by the same one, then perhaps she has a problem. Perhaps she is also being victimized. One thing to remember though is that alpha types are not always bad, arrogant people. Some are just successful men.

Personally, I like artsy, metrosexual guys right now, but I also see the appeal of alpha types. Confidence is an extremely magnetizing characteristic. If you’re a confident go-getter you make other people feel safe, and these types of people are often naturally more exciting, as they like to go out and experience the world. I have a platonic male friend who is very attractive, successful, and who can be assertive when he needs to be. He’s a natural leader because he is always getting us to go out and do interesting things, and my friends and I feel comfortable doing different things because of his confidence. His attitude makes people want to be around him. And though I sometimes disagree with a few little things that he does, I still think that he’s a good guy at the end of the day.

Guys, you might think that it’s shallow or a waste of time, but don’t ignore your physical appearance. Even really nice, moral women want to be around someone who takes the time to look nice. If you’re in decent shape and take the time to buy classy clothing that fits well (have shirts and more formal wear tailored–it makes a huge difference in the appearance of your clothing) you will feel more confident, and you will be noticed more. If you’re in a city or metro area, pay attention to the styles. If you’re in a more rural area, current style might not matter as much, but having properly fitting, nice looking attire still does.

Also, don’t dwell on your lack of significant other or on the “bad guys” getting all of the girls. Keep yourself genuinely occupied with work, fitness, hobbies, friends, etc. If the world sees that you have a lot of interests and can be happily on your own, you will become more attractive. No one wants desperation. I’m not advising that you try to change who you really are, but I am proposing that you can benefit from making small changes in appearance/attitude and by becoming more confident with who you naturally are.

 

[Debora123]

OR you automatically assumed I meant someone physically good looking when I said someone that is “pretty”. My definition of “pretty” can be anyone shallow or without morals or self absorbed. You automatically assumed I meant physical appearance. You interpreted it by your own definition, not mine.

Last I checked, the word “pretty” by it’s own real definition DOES apply to appearances.

I’ve never heard anyone use the word “pretty” to mean shallow or immoral.

 

[PatriceA]

Disagree, on so many levels. On the most biological level, intercourse is actually impossible if the man is totally not attracted to the woman. On a more humane level, desire is a normal component of spousal love (just look at Song of Songs).

Again, attraction though can be on MANY, MANY levels depending upon what makes a person tick. I’m not one that is attracted on the initial first physical impression of a person. Others might be. It wasn’t my husbands actual physical appearance that immediately drew me in to him when we first met, it was actually his laugh. I heard his laugh and his conversation with his friends because my back was to them, but I knew I had to meet him. And he is the most handsome man to me, I’m sure though that others would look at him and not get the attraction at all.

 

[PatriceA]

Last I checked, the word “pretty” by it’s own real definition DOES apply to appearances.

I’ve never heard anyone use the word “pretty” to mean shallow or immoral.

And again I said how I define “pretty”, my definition alone.

 

[PatriceA]

I understand the viewpoint you have and of course there is always subjectivity. Looks can fade and change but that does not mean sexual attraction diminishes if it is genuine, and most know when it is. A couple can be very much into each other physically even in “old age”.

Looks are at the forefront and as well they should be. What is inside must be compatible as well, but most often you get to the inside based on snap of the fingers physicality.

You are right, sexual attraction, if it is genuine, does not fade at all in a good, healthy marriage. It only gets better with time and age.

 

[Nec5]

I’ve never heard anyone use the word “pretty” to mean shallow or immoral.

Well, I have heard of “He/She is pretty ugly”.

 

[Debora123]

And again I said how I define “pretty”, my definition alone.

Well then I suppose if it’s your own made up definition, you can’t really blame the other poster for “assuming” that you meant pretty to actually mean pretty.

With that being said, I’ll have to agree with the other posters that a strong physical/sexual attraction is very important to starting out a healthy marriage.

 

[Debora123]

Well, I have heard of “He/She is pretty ugly”.